Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The OA: General Thoughts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    So it appears the issue that we keep coming back to is the one of maximal greatness. Could we not simply agree that maximal greatness, if it is a coherent concept, would entail necessity regardless of whether we understand all the ins-and-outs of it, including whether the nature of maximal greatness has a maximum or is infinite in quality?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      I'm no atheist. That doesn't mean that I uncritically accept any and every logical argument for "God".
      Did he not look at your profile? Last time I checked Christian =/= atheist. I aagree, bad arguments are bad arguments. A tautology?
      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Theistic-Student View Post
        So it appears the issue that we keep coming back to is the one of maximal greatness. Could we not simply agree that maximal greatness, if it is a coherent concept, would entail necessity regardless of whether we understand all the ins-and-outs of it, including whether the nature of maximal greatness has a maximum or is infinite in quality?
        I can set aside the issue of its coherence, yes, but otherwise I have not yet reached a definite conclusion on whether it would entail necessity in any of the many ontological arguments. For me, the next issue is the concept of 'greatness' or 'excellence' or whatever. It needs analysis rather than being assumed. Now, of course, I would expect that many of the proponents of ontological argument would do this analysis, but then each one needs to be examined in the context of the respective arguments.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
          Did he not look at your profile? Last time I checked Christian =/= atheist. I aagree, bad arguments are bad arguments. A tautology?
          Law of identity.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            Law of identity.
            A=A? What's a tautology anyways?
            If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
              What's a tautology anyways?
              Basically just talking in circles.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                *Though I know of one relatively well-known modern philosopher who was finally convinced of Duns Scotus' version of it.
                Can you elaborate on this a little? I'm a tad curious.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  I can set aside the issue of its coherence, yes, but otherwise I have not yet reached a definite conclusion on whether it would entail necessity in any of the many ontological arguments. For me, the next issue is the concept of 'greatness' or 'excellence' or whatever. It needs analysis rather than being assumed. Now, of course, I would expect that many of the proponents of ontological argument would do this analysis, but then each one needs to be examined in the context of the respective arguments.
                  Sounds corrects to me. Guess this is what I will have to research to see if the argument is of any use.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Theistic-Student View Post
                    Can you elaborate on this a little? I'm a tad curious.
                    Michael Loux, “A Scotistic Argument for the Existence of a First Cause” in American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984), 157–165.

                    On second thought, I might be misremembering his approach. It's been many years since I took any philosophy classes.
                    Last edited by robrecht; 05-08-2014, 04:04 PM.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      Some atheists are folks who reject any argument for the existence of God or refuse to accept any definition of "God." I think just shake the dust off our shoes and go on to other places.
                      While this is certainly true, I'm not sure what the point is. That some will always refuse to accept should not keep you from making defenses as rigorous as possible. "You can accept" and "reasonable to believe" aren't very rigorous.
                      I'm not here anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        Some atheists are folks who reject any argument for the existence of God or refuse to accept any definition of "God." I think just shake the dust off our shoes and go on to other places.
                        What about Christians and other theists who reject the idea that God can be defined, ie, the classic Medieval view that God is one and simple, not a species within a genus?
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                          I'm no atheist. That doesn't mean that I uncritically accept any and every logical argument for "God".
                          Sorry, I did not have you or any of your posts in mind when writing that post.
                          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            Sorry, I did not have you or any of your posts in mind when writing that post.
                            That's all right.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Was there a definition of "greatness"? Anyway, "Nothing is greater than God" is meaningless until "God" is defined by a definition that does not imply "nothing is greater than God."
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                                Was there a definition of "greatness"? Anyway, "Nothing is greater than God" is meaningless until "God" is defined by a definition that does not imply "nothing is greater than God."
                                This is precisely why in OAs God is defined as 'the maximally great being' or somesuch.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X